40

SYMBOLIC PRODUCTION OF COFFEE-DRINKING: GENEALOGY,

PROBLEMATIZATION AND THE CASE OF CORDILLERA COFFEE

Aliya S. Peleo1

Abstract

This paper explores the genealogy of coffee-drinking and how it has changed through history

with particularly focus on the problematization of coffee as a ‘cultural’ symbol for people in

different parts of the World and in different historic periods and locate the contemporary

symbolic production of coffee as a ‘development project’ in the case of the Cordillera region

in the Philippines. From the first glance, the political economy and culture of coffee-drinking

for both consumers and producers in any part of the World at its core is local. However,

coffee becomes part of the international politics when populations of different local

geographic spaces need to interact with each other to continue their ‘local’ patterns of

lifestyle for consumption or production. The international interaction is often expressed

through biopolitical hierarchies of interaction between (1) the wealthy populations in the

developed countries of Global North with (2) the vulnerable subsistent populations in the

underdeveloped countries of Global South. Often these two groups of people have limited

knowledge about the context of biopolitical administration of ‘life processes’ in each

geographic space. How is this limitation negotiated and processed through symbolic

construction of what ‘coffee’ has meant for people through history?

Keywords: genealogy, symbolic production, coffee-drinking, biopolitics, power

relations

1 PhD candidate, Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies National Sun Yat-sen

University, Taiwan, ROC. Email: Email: aliya.peleo@gmail.com

41

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the genealogy of coffee-drinking and how it has changed through

history with particularly focus on the problematization of coffee as a ‘cultural’ symbol for

people of different societal values in different parts of the World and in different historic

periods. It also locates the contemporary symbolic meaning of coffee as a ‘development

project’ in the case of the Cordillera region in the Philippines. From the first glance, it seems

that, at the core, the political economy and culture of coffee-drinking for both consumers and

producers in any part of the World is local. However, coffee becomes part of the hierarchical

biopolitics when populations of different local geographic spaces need to interact with each

other, to continue their ‘local’ patterns of lifestyle for consumption or production of coffee.

The international interaction is often expressed through biopolitical hierarchies (Parfitt,

2009) of interaction between two categories of people: (1) the wealthy populations in the

developed countries of Global North with (2) the vulnerable subsistent populations in the

underdeveloped countries of Global South (Duffield, 2007). Often these two groups of people

have limited knowledge about the contexts of biopolitical administration of ‘life processes’

and governmentality (Lemke, 2001) in any geographic space other than their own. In other

words, persons who enjoy the cup of espresso, macchiato, café latte or cappuccino in the

alluring environment of the local coffee shops in the contemporary urban environment of

Europe, North America or Northeast Asia in most cases might not be aware about the

complexity of the history, politics and economics of the ‘cup of coffee’ and about the

genealogy of ‘coffee culture’ in their local café, coffee-shop or coffeehouse where it is

served. Similarly to the metaphorical Roman Emperor Elagabalus in AD 218-222, the first

Western leader who was “to wear clothes made entirely from silk” from China, but who

“knew not China” believing that silk grew on the mulberry tree, modern consumers of coffee

have often very little knowledge of how, where and by whom their coffee was grown,

produced and traded (Bernstein, 2008, pp. 1-2). Moreover, there generally is also limited

awareness among contemporary consumers and producers about the historical origins and

context of social and political aspects of coffee culture. Thus, the consumer of coffee in

Starbucks, Costa or any other famous coffee brands in the Global North might have very

limited or no ideas about the people and cultures in the Global South where actually coffee

42

cherries are grown, or about the standards for processing and packing in the Global North.

For example, consumers in the Global North might know single-origin Toraja coffee’s

famous full bodied caramel-flavour of speciality coffee shops, but know little or nothing

about lives of people in the “fundamentally subsistence-based Torajan economy” (Neilson &

Shonk, 2014, p. 277). The “physical landscape of rural Toraja” in Indonesia as well as most

labour practices are “contained within a non-commoditised subsistence realm” where

biopolitical hierarchy of power is determined by “ancestry and birth” (Neilson & Shonk,

2014, p. 278). Furthermore, many consumers of Toraja coffee in the Global North might not

be able to make a connection between the recent news about earthquake, tsunami and

destruction of Palu city with major airport in Sulawesi to the possible disruption to the

favourite Toraja speciality coffee in the local neighbourhood café.

Coffee is considered the “world’s most widely traded tropical agricultural

commodity” (International Coffee Organization, 2018) . The coffee consumption is largest

in the temperate climate, while coffee can grow only in the tropical climate. Interestingly,

Finland is a leader in the annual consumption of coffee with 12 kg per capita, followed by

Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Netherlands (Kelly, 2013). Arabica and Robusta are the

main coffee types that are grown for large scale imports. More than half of the World coffee

trade is more expensive Arabica coffee variety and most of it, about 80%, comes from Latin

America, while Robusta beans mostly come from Africa and Asia. Coffee is one of the

valuable agricultural commodities that did not lose its importance and endured since the spice

trade and mercantilist era (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, pp. 1-2). It was part of the colonial

cash crops that were produced and traded on a large scale since the early modern history.

Nowadays it is still relevant to the contemporary international political economy, society and

culture as well as local politics and governance. Therefore, the contemporary political,

societal and cultural aspects of coffee consumption has been associated with Western

countries of Europe and North America, while the agrarian, economic, political and societal

aspects of coffee growing and production has always been with the local communities of

people in the Southern countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. However, even this

description of the complex dichotomy between Northern and Southern colonial and later

43

post-colonial dynamics of coffee issue is rather incomplete. Even well-informed coffee

consumers are generally unaware that the political and societal context of coffee consumption

in Europe of the 17th-18th century was closely linked with the history of Islam as well as with

the local culture and political dynamics of trade that defined the Arab expansion, the rise of

Ottoman Empire and Persia in the late medieval and early modern history (McHugo, 2013).

Furthermore, most recently the previous colonial dynamic between Northern and

Southern territories and people has changed to a post-colonial corporate cash crop of large

multinational companies such as Nestle, Proctor and Gamble, Kraft, and Starbucks.

“Sip a steaming brew at Starbucks, and you might associate coffee with

prosperity. The image of carefree consumers enjoying $3 lattes seems totally

unrelated to that of coffee-bean farmers and workers, who live with grinding

poverty, illiteracy and a long legacy of economic colonialism. But the two groups

are part of an intricately related system that has existed for centuries, leaving

coffee harvesters immiserated, and coffee drinkers mostly unaware to the

suffering that goes into making their beverage.” (James, 2002).

Coffee producers as other agricultural workers in developing countries have been

often kept in a cycle of poverty and debt due to the global economic system of coffee that

require free trade and cheap labour in order to keep consumer prices affordable. For example,

the “disempowerment which are currently experienced by marginalised coffee workers and

producers” in Nicaragua might not be reflected in the Nicaragua coffee consumed in

Starbucks coffee shops in the US (Macdonald, 2007, p. 794). The rules for trade between the

tropical developing countries where coffee is produced and temperate developed countries,

where coffee is mostly consumed, has been unequal with “the low prices paid for agricultural

products relative to the cost of imports (on a national level) or the cost of living (on a

household level)”. Moreover, this unequal dynamics have “worsened significantly for the

global South since the 1970s” (Jaffee, 2007, p. 11).

44

As a result the coffee growing has been often associated with unpaid or poorly paid

labourers in the post-colonial environment. Moreover, the development of instant coffee has

opened the niche for the lower quality beans of Robusta coffee to be sold in bulk to be

processed by large multinational companies, while Arabica coffee has always been used for

the gourmet or lifestyle brewed Third Wave coffee to maximise the profitability and societal

value of coffee through “means of symbolic production” (Fischer, 2017, p. 5). Coffee-

drinking institutions such as “Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA), and media

such as Roast magazine are the ones that determine the “means of symbolic production work”

by institutionalizing norms and standards for “cupping protocols, the lexicon of taste” profile

and other fashionable Third Wave and Specialty coffee processes that determine its value

(Fischer, 2017, p. 3). The Western market as well as its changing social norms and values

(from ‘coffee as a luxury’ to ‘coffee as a necessity’ and more recently back to the more

familiar older pattern of affluence for ‘coffee as a speciality’ product) continue to dictate the

type of coffee that need to be grown and produced by populations in the tropical climates of

Global South. Thus, the coffee consumers in the basic supermarkets or in the fashionable

cafés and coffee shops in Europe and North America had often little understanding or

consciousness about the international, national and local bio- and geopolitics behind the

cappuccino, espresso or café latte that they drink. The same might have been true about the

small- and large-scale coffee growers in the developing countries, who often had very limited

awareness about the value of instant Robusta that people drink at home/work in the developed

world, or about the gourmet ‘fair trade’ and ‘organic’ Third Wave or Speciality Arabica

coffee that conscientious consumers prefer in their fashionable café and coffee shops in

Europe, North America and Northeast Asia. Meanwhile, national and local government in

the coffee-growing South, such as n the Cordillera Administrative Region in the Philippines,

do not refer to any Western coffee-culture explanations in their attempts to assist the local

population to improve their livelihoods. Coffee is instead limited as a context-less topic for

technical education, increased investment, technology transfer and efficiency in the cash crop

production system that can be economically feasible, environmentally friendly and socially

acceptable.

45

RESEARCH METHOD: GENEALOGY AND PROBLEMATIZATION

Genealogy is a method of research or analytical toolkit used to “articulate problems”,

particularly for issues that do not have “solutions readily apparent” for underlying historic

and social concerns that come with “submerged problems” in the structures of

governmentality. These “submerged problems” are ontologically “lodged deep inside of us

all as the historical conditions of possibility of our present ways of doing, being, and

thinking.” Even if these critical methods such as genealogy, archaeology and

problematization are separated from critical concepts such as governmentality, discipline and

biopower, they fundamentally come from the work of Michael Foucault. Thus, “genealogy

as a method is not so much about discipline or biopolitics as it is about a philosophic-

historical inquiry into the conditions that make possible problems” of modernity such as

“modern sexuality” or “modern punishment” (Koopman, 2013, pp. 1, 6) Still, the concepts

that Foucault developed such as biopolitics, biopower, disciplinal power “depend in large

part on his methodological ensemble (genealogy, archaeology, problematization, etc.).”

(Koopman, 2013, p. 7) The importance of “philosophical-historical-anthropological-

sociological readings of Foucault” and major biopolitics and biopower associated concepts

discussed are central to ‘genealogy’ as a method. Furthermore, the use of this method “aligns

the specific critical intervention of Foucault’s work with the themes of a much broader

postmodern assault whose principal protagonists are generally claimed to (along with

Foucault himself) Jean Baudrillard, Jean Francouis Lyotard, Jacques Lacan, and more

recently Giorgio Agamben.” Particularly, Foucault’s method of ‘genealogy’ is often aligned

with ‘deconstructive genealogy’ of Derrida, who himself promoted the study of the history

of ideas “despite his prominent early criticisms of Foucault.” (Koopman, 2013, pp. 9-10)

Thus, the “tradition of critical theory” together with Dewey for pragmatistism and Habermas

for critical theory, as well as genealogists approach Foucault “as someone who developed a

rich set of analytic, diagnostic, and conceptual tools that can be taken up in the present for

purposes of a critical inquiry into the present”. (Koopman, 2013, pp. 11-12) Thus, the

genealogy as critical problematization helps researchers “to show how that which is so easily

taken as natural was composed into the natural-seeming thing that it is.” (Koopman, 2013, p.

129) In other words, the process of genealogy brings the “distinction between the fact that

46

our practices are contingent and the history of how these same practices were contingently

composed.” (Koopman, 2013, p. 130)

This article attempts to problematize the historical value of coffee-drinking practice

and associated symbolization through the review of the general coffee genealogy in the

World history. Furthermore the article will discuss the specific case of the coffee production

in the Cordillera region of the Philippines as a more localized example of historic biopolitical

hierarchy and marginalization that was imposed from the outside of the region. Still there is

an expectation that, despite the inherent marginalizing power relations, there is a way to

improve the quality of coffee production and the quality of life for all stakeholders of coffee

value chain, and particularly for coffee smallholders and their communities.

GENEOLOGY OF COFFEE-DRINKING: THE ORIGINS OF SYMBOLIC

PRODUCTION

The article in New Scientist claimed that “caffeine is the most widely consumed

psychoactive substance on earth”, which is valued by “almost every human culture for its

ability to perk people up and keep them awake” (Lovett, 2005). The article title suggests that

coffee that contains caffeine is the ‘demon drink’ capable of manipulating the physiology

and psychological or emotional state of the people. In one 6 oz (30 ml) cup of coffee there is

approximately 77-150 mg of naturally occurring caffeine (Kelly, Coffee addiction: Do people

consume too much caffeine, 2013). The opinion that coffee can affect human emotional state

as a stimulant is not new, as from the very beginning of the known history of coffee-drinking

it was considered first as a ‘religious’ drink, then transformed into a ‘social drink’, which at

a time in some ‘spaces’ became known as a notorious ‘political stimulant’ for open discussion

and criticism of the authorities.

Most probably the origins of coffee had come from the ancient land of Abyssinia,

which is present-day Ethiopia. Ethiopian folklore tale tells us that the first coffee was drunk

in the Ethiopia by the shepherd named Kaldi who used the wild Arabica berry to make a

drink to keep him awake. The legend tells that Kaldi “discovered the joys of coffee when his

47

goats ate the berries and became so frisky that they danced” (Pendergrast, 2010, pp. 3-4).

However, even though there is abundance of wild Arabica coffee grown in the west of the

Great Rift Valley of Ethiopia, there is little scientific evidence about the origins of coffee

consumption in that area. Ethiopians initially “brewed the leaves and berries (of coffee plant)

with boiled water as a weak tea”, they also however fermented pulp of berries to make wine

and mixed ground beans with “animal fat for quite energy-snack” (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 4).

However, it is known that coffee spread from Islamic people of south-eastern Ethiopia to

Rasulid sultanate in Arabia Felix, which is modern Yemen (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003,

pp. 50-51). Pendergrast suggests it happened most probably in the sixth century when

“Ethiopians invaded and ruled Yemen for some fifty years” (Pendergrast, 2010, pp. 5-6).

Then the coffee drinking has extended to the area around Aden, Mocha and Zabid in the

beginning of fifteenth century and “by 1414 it was known in Mecca” (McHugo, 2013). The

Yemenis are responsible for giving the drink a name that we still use adapted to different

languages - Arabic name qahwa. Most references agree that the word ‘coffee’ comes from

qahwa, which is originally used for ‘wine’. However some believe that the word ‘coffee’ has

etymological origin in “(1) the Kaffa region of Ethiopia, (2) the Arab word quwwa (power),

or (3) kafta, the drink made from the khat plant” (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 6).

The spread of coffee as a social drink was first spread by the followers of mystical

Sufism in Islam. The drink was first used as a “medicine or religious aid”, but then

transformed to a secular social drink. Most Sufi followers were hardly ever full-time

‘religious clerics’, as most people had the usual day work and at night they gathered to

perform the worship rituals. “To keep awake and alert for their spiritual exercises” at night

worship Sufi mystics began drinking coffee “instead of the traditional Yemeni stimulant, the

leaf of the qat shrub” (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 6). Because most of the Sufi mystics “were not

monastic hermits, but rather men of ordinary affairs”, the coffee-drinking quickly spread to

other secular social and cultural affairs (Bernstein, 2008, p. 244). Later, in the end of the

fifteenth century, coffee-drinking spread to Cairo “initially among Yemeni students at the al-

Azhar university” (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 51). The drink was still “associated

with Sufis”, but the “cluster of coffee houses grew” in the surrounding area of the university

48

(McHugo, 2013). Thus, the coffee brew transformed from the ‘religious drink’ to the ‘social

drink’ of the university students and professors.

In the sixteenth century the coffee-drinking tradition had spread quickly across

Yemen to the port of Mocha and then “north via the Red Sea trade routes” to Jeddah

(Bernstein, 2008, p. 245). The wealthy homes had their own coffee rooms for social

interaction of family with guests, while poorer merchants, craftsmen and other common

people gathered at coffeehouses. Coffeehouses were the place to socialise with friends, learn

about the local news, and meet new people. In 1511 the young Mamluk governor Khair Beg

al-Mimar, “a typical killjoy bureaucrat obsessed with a fear that somewhere, somehow,

people were having fun” (Bernstein, 2008, pp. 245-246), learnt that coffeehouses spread

some satirical verses about him (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 6). The governor most probably felt

insecure and found the practice unacceptable. Thus, with the assistance of “two Persian

physicians, he forbade the beverage, for both medical and moral reasons”. This prohibition

of coffee consumption and coffeehouses did not stay for long due to “the Ottoman conquest

of the Mamluk state of Egypt in 1516-1517”. Coffee consumption was spread throughout the

Ottoman Empire context because of the widespread acceptance of the socio-political

institution of coffeehouses. Subsequently, the coffeehouses opened in Damascus in 1534,

then in Istanbul where “Suleiman the Magnificent introduced a tax on coffee in 1554” to

improve the government revenues from popular drink and to limit the socio-political aspect

of coffee-drinking culture to the wealthy elites (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, pp. 51-52).

Coffee as an “unsweetened liquid, occasionally flavoured with cloves, anise, or cardamom”

became a part of socio-political life of men in coffeehouses and social and family life of

women in the harem. Furthermore, noblewomen made sure they had a consistent supply of

coffee beans in the respected families and prosperous houses to which they belonged by

claiming that coffee is “an essential spousal obligation and failure to provide it constituted

grounds for divorce” (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 246).

The coffeehouse was not just the place to drink coffee, but also it was “an institution

in which men met together to talk, listen to poets and play games like chess and

backgammon”. It was a socio-political space with particular “focus for intellectual life”,

49

which often was perceived as “an implicit rival to the mosque as a meeting place” (McHugo,

2013). The socio-political culture of coffeehouses was successful enough in the Ottoman

Empire to be spread further to the neighbouring Persia. One of the “best-informed European

observers of Safavid Persia”, the Huguenot French Jean Chardin (Richards, 2000) who later

in England became Sir John Chardin in exile from persecution, provided a vivid description

of the 17th century coffeehouses and their socio-political significance:

People met there to drink cordials, liqueurs or coffee, to smoke tobacco or

opium during the day or in the cold of the evenings, chat, or listen to poetry. These

places were full of animation and entertainment and appealed to Persians of all classes

with their wide range of amusing, serious and obscene activities… Coffee was drunk,

served very professionally, quickly and carefully. Strong spirits were drunks and

wine. Conversations took place, for it was the place where news was discussed and

where politicians criticised the government freely and without any anxiety, since the

government took little interest in what the people said. Innocent games like draughts,

hopscotch or chess were played. Other activities included recitations of poetry,

religious exhortations or denunciations on the vanity of human life and story-telling.

All were allowed to speak or listen with the greatest freedom and with good manners

(Ferrier, 1996, p. 118).

Thus, coffeehouses represented not only the space to meet and socialise with family,

friends or tradesmen, but also an open ‘political space’ to express one’s opinion and criticism

about the authorities and engage in discussion without fear of persecution. Therefore, during

16th and 17th centuries, the coffee brew had been transformed not only into the symbolic

‘social drink’, but also into the ‘political drink’ which facilitated open debate on key issues

that was politicised among different classes of men in Ottoman Empire and Persia. The

‘political aspect’ of coffeehouses made some rulers suspicious; for example, Sultan Murat

IV of the Ottoman Empire attempted to prohibit the coffeehouses, because he was “fearful

that they might foment revolution”, but coffeehouse culture had already become continual

norm of business interaction for Ottoman society and prohibition did not last for long

(Bernstein, 2008, p. 246).

50

“Any commodity popular in Constantinople soon found its way to the rest of Europe

via Venice” (Bernstein, 2008, p. 246), thus in the 17th century coffee finally spread to Europe.

Coffee arrived to Europe mostly by “two routes - from the Ottoman Empire, and by sea from

the original coffee port of Mocha” (McHugo, 2013). In the beginning coffee in Europe was

understandably perceived with mistrust and suspicion as a ‘Muslim drink’. Moreover,

Catholic theologians in Rome “like their Muslim counterparts, harboured suspicions about

the brew’s moral properties” (Bernstein, 2008, pp. 246-247). Pope Clement VIII tried the

exotic ‘suspicious drink’ “at the behest of his priests, who wanted him to ban it”, but contrary

to the expectations, Pope happened to enjoy it (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 8). Pope Clement VIII

was so pleased about this new drink that he thought “that it would be a pity to let the infidels

have exclusive use of it. We shall fool Satan by baptizing it and making it a truly Christian

beverage.” (Pendergrast, 2010, pp. 8-9). Thus, Pope blessed the new drink as a ‘Christian

beverage’ and “spared Europe the caffeine controversy” (Bernstein, 2008, p. 247). The

Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683 was to blame for introducing the coffee-drinking culture to

Austro-Hungarian Empire. When the siege was broken by the Austro-Hungarians with the

help of Polish Army, the Ottoman Empire “left behind not only their hope of conquering

Europe”, but also the bags of coffee beans that no one in Vienna knew what to do with.

Among the liberators of Vienna was Polish soldier, Franz George Kolschitzky, who

“previously served as an interpreter with the Turks”. He took the bags of unwanted and

suspiciously ‘foreign’ coffee beans and opened the first Viennese café (Bernstein, 2008, pp.

247-248). Over two hundred years later the famous Viennese café space would be responsible

for stimulating social, economic and political discussions by some of the most influential

figures of the 20th century - Hitler, Stalin, Trotsky, Freud, Jung, and Tito (Walker, 2013). The

discourses started in those café led to revolutionary political changes in Russia, rise of social

nationalism in Germany and two World Wars in Europe in the first half of 20th century.

While the demand for coffee was growing in 16th and 17th century, the supply from

Yemen was still monopolised by Ottoman Empire and particularly merchants of

cosmopolitan Cairo. In the 17th century, the Muslim pilgrim Baba Budan was able to

successfully smuggle the seed of coffee to Southern India, while in 1616 the Dutch were able

51

“to transport a tree to Holland from Aden”. Dutch later introduced coffee growing in Ceylon

in 1658 and in Java in 1699, which was followed by “cultivation (of coffee) in Sumatra,

Celebes, Timor, Bali and other islands in the East Indies”. As a result, the words ‘Mocha’

and ‘Java’ became closely associated with famous coffee available in the international market

in 17th-19th century (Pendergrast, 2010, p. 7). Thus, the growth of demand for coffee in the

Middle East and later Europe brought the necessity to introduce coffee growing in Southeast

Asia.

PROBLEMATIZATION: COFFEE AS A ‘DEVELOPMENT PROJECT’

The coffee trade between the Philippines and the Northern colonial administrators of

Spain and later US, as in the most other coffee production interaction of the tropical colonies

and Northern masters, was set as “unequal exchange”. Only in the late 20th century the

discourse of ‘fair trade’ was able “to address this structural injustice” (Jaffee, 2007, p. 11).

Moreover, Philippines as most other Asian coffee-growing countries such as Vietnam, India,

Thailand and Indonesia in the recent history put “a greater emphasis on robusta (Coffea

canephora) varieties”, which is usually sold cheaply in bulk for instant coffee production that

is “less valuable than the C. arabica varieties typical of Latin American producers” sold for

speciality coffee. The largest beneficiary of coffee industry boom in Northern Europe

throughout 18th-20th century was Brazil, probably because “chocolate-drinking Spain” with

its Latin American and Asian colonies was quite successful in resisting “the addictive allures

of coffee” (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 3).

The other successful example was Dutch colonies in Southeast Asia, what is now

Indonesia. The coffee alone provided about 80% of Dutch government revenues in the

colonies until 1860s. “Coffee was the key to the Dutch “Cultivation System” of obligatory

deliveries” to state, while the sugar was a “loss making crop to the mid-1840s” (Clarence-

Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 9). Furthermore, Dutch colonisers comparatively to Spanish

colonisers were famed in an effort to improve “tropical agronomy” and “carried out research

for indigenous smallholders” (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 10). Therefore, when the

52

coffee-leaf blight or rust caused by the Hemileia vastatrix fungus epidemic happened in Asia,

Dutch Java coffee production was able to survive, while other production centres in Ceylon,

India, and the Philippines declined in spite of “showing great promise” (Clarence-Smith &

Topik, 2003, p. 7). The fungus believed to have origins in Sri Lanka, however the victims of

Hemileia fungus were spread as far as the Philippines and Malaya. In the Philippines

particularly, the mismanagement of coffee plantations combined with “the joint ravages of a

stem borer and Hemileia were blamed for the rapid collapse of coffee” in the 19th century

(Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 104). Moreover, it allowed Latin American coffee

production to “consolidate their domination of the world coffee market” (Clarence-Smith &

Topik, 2003, pp. 101-102).

According to Clarence-Smith, despite the decline in coffee production after the

devastating coffee-leaf blight, “the Spanish authorities introduced compulsory growing of

coffee in 1881” in Luzon island. Clarence-Smith reports that some tribal groups refused to

grow the new ‘compulsory’ crop, but others “enthusiastically adopted” the practice. As a

result, “this remained one of the few areas where coffee flourished under American rule after

1898” in the Philippines (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 111). However the increase of

the population in the later 19th century combined with the general food shortage and “rising

food prices” in the volatile markets of the Spanish-American war and Independence time

caused the “lands formerly devoted to coffee not only turned over to sugar, but also to maize

and rice” particularly in Batangas, Philippines (Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 115). Thus,

Philippines coffee was not able to compete with the other “more favorably situated colony

of Puerto Rico”, even in the context of the “enhanced protection on the Spanish market from

1882 to 1898”, the political instability, volatile markets combined with the local

mismanagement of production and logistics caused “the collapse of Philippine exports”

(Clarence-Smith & Topik, 2003, p. 117). Thus, the people of Cordilleras in the Northern

Luzon of the Philippines were introduced to coffee production at a time when it was difficult

to be competitive among other colonial and post-colonial coffee-growing areas in the

international markets from late 19th and early 20th century. Moreover, the local population of

Cordilleras were minorities, who were not fully colonized during Spanish period. People in

53

the Cordillera had with distinct culture, ethno-linguistic identity, and socio-economic

practices and were often subject to political and economic marginalisation by the post-

colonial national administration of the Philippines.

Agamben (Agamben, 1998) and Parfitt (Parfitt, 2009) problematized the notions of

the ‘sovereignty’ and ‘development’ as ‘biopolitical project’ (Foucault, 2008) in the post-

colonial countries in the Global South. This can be observed in the issues of indigenous

people and ‘ancestral domain’ rights in the Cordillera region of the Philippines. Similarly to

the Agamben’s dichotomy of ‘good life’ and ‘bare life’, Malayang argues that “colonization

divided the Filipino population into two groups” or ‘forms of living’, each group with entirely

“different experience of colonization” and associated administration of life or

governmentality of population from birth to death. He uses the notion of “'C-Filipinos' , the

colonized”, who were “cross-bread with colonial rulers”, “co-opted by and collaborated with

the colonial regime” and generally adapted the educational, religious and socio-economic

governmentality of the colonial administration over indigenous life processes. While the

second group, that he calls the ‘I-Filipinos', “who were generally considered to be politically

irrelevant”, that is to say, they were excluded from the ‘good life’ politics. Commissioner

Taft famously reported on the ‘uncivilized’ people of the mountains who have no modern

conception of politics (Taft, 1902). The coastal areas in the lowlands of the Northern Luzon

were under Spanish colonial governance, however the indigenous population of the highlands

in the Cordillera mountains were “successful in repelling the punitive expeditions, especially

during the 1800s” despite the Spanish colonial attempts for biopolitical control of the

population. Spanish used resourceful biopolitical methods available for 16th-19th centuries

colonial governmentality to control the troublesome ‘head-hunting’ population, such as for

example, the “whole villages were put to the torch and the populations declined - especially

in Benguet Province, where smallpox was deliberately introduced through infected clothing”

(Prill-Brett, 1994, p. 689).

The ‘I-Filipinos’ were often impoverished, administered by general neglect and

“economic and political marginalization”, and usually lived in the geographically less

accessible mountainous areas being “indigenous in their ways”. Therefore the emancipation

54

of these ‘I-Filipinos’ has been associated with accepted “legitimacy of the ancestral domain

claims” and the associated “rights and tenure of indigenous peoples over their ancestral

domains” (Malayang III, 2001). In the land system of the independent Philippines, ‘I-

Filipinos’ claim on land that is “not covered by official documentation, such as the highland

areas occupied by indigenous groups who have not acquired legal titles” were part of the

“public domain” (Prill-Brett, 1994) and, therefore, legitimate for national ‘development

projects’ of modernization by ‘C-Filipinos’. These ‘development projects’ were usually large

infrastructural initiatives such as hydropower station with dam construction as well as more

environmentally harming practices of logging, chemically intensive agriculture and mining.

This legitimacy was provided by the legislating the Republic Act (RA) 8438, which stated in

the Article II Section 1 that “autonomy ensures for the people of the Cordillera the right to

secure for themselves their Ancestral Domain, develop their economy, promote their cultural

heritage, and establish a system of self-governance within the framework of the Philippine

Constitution and national sovereignty” (Casambre, 2006).

By this legislation, in theory the dichotomy of the ‘I-Filipinos’ and ‘C-Filipinos’

would overcome the unequal representation in economic, social and political development

of two different ‘forms of live administration’. The Cordillera minorities of the so-called

‘Fourth World’, who had “exploitative relations to the lands which they still inhabit and who

are disenfranchised by the states within which they live”, were able to legitimise their

ancestral claims to land and socio-political self-determination within the national border of

the state (Hyndman, 1991). However, there is still some doubts if this legal rights were

operationalized into the self-governing project of ‘ethno-development’, that is “the

development policies that are sensitive to the needs of ethnic minorities and indigenous

peoples and where possible controlled by them” (Clarke, 2001). For example, the Ibaloi

ethno-linguistic community of the Benguet province in Cordilleras, for example, in early

1990s were considered as not sufficiently prepared, particularly in the technical and

technocratic capacities, for successful integration into the Philippine economic and political

system. On the one hand, local people were often manipulated by large and more competent

entities such as corporations, large government or international projects. Even the

55

agricultural aid is often subject to pressure from large organizations and donor governments

that usually resulted in “short-time considerations (that) override a long-term approach that

would address rural poverty and land inequality” through development initiatives (Manahan,

2011). On the other hand, the agricultural productivity had also decreased because of

insufficient constructive interaction between the national/provincial and local indigenous

governance systems (Wiber, 1991). Thus, the separation of ‘life administration’ among

different ‘forms of population’ also brings the socio-cultural and economic division between

the groups of population. The ‘politico-racial’ conflict may intensify as the “progress looked

down on their civilization”, “technology threatened their traditions”, and “modernity

infringed on their rights” (Ting Jr., 2008).

Interestingly, it is only Benguet province in the Cordillera region that produces

Arabica coffee in large enough quantity for export production, while Kalinga, Ifugao and

Mountain Province choose to produce large quantities of less delicate Robusta coffee for

lower quality and cheaper instant coffee production (Department of Agriculture, 2018).

Therefore, the production of Robusta coffee is already determined by the hierarchical

inequalities of large-scale multinational production supply-chain system of instant coffee

production that emphases ‘efficiency’ over ‘equity’. Furthermore, the ‘geographical

accessibility’ of the space using existing infrastructure often defined the type of land use and

“land-cover change” due to the particular agricultural activity in the Cordilleras (Verburg,

Overmars, & Witte, 2004). The infrastructural, technical and technocratic capacities for

agriculture, technology and overall knowledge transfer in the geographically more remote

Kalinga, Ifugao and Mountain Provinces are not as favourable as in the Benguet Province.

Therefore, the Benguet province has greater geo- and biopolitically determined opportunities

for social, political, and economic benefit among other people in the Cordillera, and thus

opportunities for human development (Philippine Human Development Report. Geography,

Part II: Geography and Human Development in the Philippines, 2012-2013) as well as for

the overall development practices under neoliberal context (Willis, 2005).

56

Figure 1: Volume of Coffee Production in the Cordillera Administrative Region by Province

Source: Department of Agriculture website

http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=10&pageid=1&ma=A60PNVOP

Figure 2: Arabica Coffee Production in the Cordillera Administrative Region by Province

Source: Department of Agriculture website

http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=10&pageid=1&ma=A60PNVOP

57

Presently there is an expectation that the symbolic value attached to the Arabica

coffee production for more expensive gourmet speciality coffee and ethical ‘fair trade’ coffee

might still be able to mitigate the hierarchical biopolitical differences between the consumers,

processors, and growers of coffee. In the recent history of coffee as a contemporary culture,

the coffee beverage went through at least Three Waves of cultural transformation. In 1960s,

the acceptance of instant coffee as a consumer necessity in European and American markets

started a so-called First Wave with the rise of major instant coffee brands such as Nescafe of

Nestle, as well as Kraft and Douwe Egberts. The Second Wave was marked by coffee

becoming more of a ‘luxury’ product again rather than necessity with increased quality of

brewed coffee rather than instant coffee and the rise of Starbucks model of global franchises

in the 1980s. The quality of coffee beans, roasting techniques and the overall quality of the

coffee became more important for consumer. The Third Wave of coffee-drinking arrived in

the early 2000s with “the importance of every actor in the supply chain: producer, importer,

roaster, barista, and consumer.” The improved quality of coffee meant the emphasis are now

on (1) direct trade, (2) sustainability, (3) lighter roast profiles, (4) innovative brewing

methods. The baristas and consumers are now to “chase sweetness, complexity, and

distinctiveness” in different coffee profiles. And consumers are eager to pay more for that

distinctiveness. Even if the categories such as ‘specialty coffee’ and ‘Third Wave coffee’ are

often “used interchangeably” there is still a difference. Thus, the “Third wave is not a cup of

coffee; it’s a mindset” that defines the contemporary culture of coffee consumption in often

independent café who also roast their own coffee and take charge of their own supply chain

from tree-to-cup. However, the ‘speciality coffee’ the category is assigned by “the Specialty

Coffee Association (SCA) [that] scores coffees on a 100-point scale.” Any coffee that is

higher than 60 is considered ‘commercial-grade’, while “at 80 points or above”, the coffee is

graded as ‘speciality coffee’. (Guevara, 2017)

The arrival of the Third Wave coffee culture appears to highlight the dilemma that

local farmers face, to choose either to be “in favour of the poor but stable conditions of

subsistence production” or to willingly embrace “commercial cultivation” in the context of

uneven knowledge and technology distribution (Lewis, 1992). Even though the hierarchies

58

of knowledge and technological capacities may still exist, there are still ethically acceptable

ways to engage in the ‘ethno-development’ involving local coffee producers. One of the

current examples was the interaction and engagement of Ibaloi and Kankanaey ethno-

linguistic communities of the CAR in Arabica coffee production in partnership with small

speciality coffee company, Rocky Mountain Café Inc. (Global Coffee Report, 2015). The

social responsibility report of the Rocky Mountain Café Inc. stated that the company is “to

help the Ibaloi and Kankanaey coffee farmers in Benguet to help themselves”, in line with

the ethical goals of gourmet speciality coffee production. Social responsibility activities of

the company have supposedly been beneficial for both the operations of industrial coffee

production and the positive biopolitical interaction with the coffee-growing communities.

The farmers and their families in the community could have received educational, health,

emergency, farmers’ training, gender equality, cooperative development, and promotion of

indigenous culture support from the company (Rocky Mountain Café Inc., 2010). However,

the company eventually focused on large-scale production to ensure profitability rather than

on maintaining positive social relations with its original production base. “Rocky Mountain

has been investing in the development of 10 new 100-hectare plantations across the

Philippines to boost its production capacity to 1.5 million kilograms of organic coffee

annually, a move that will make it the largest coffee producer in the Philippines”, mostly in

Mindanao Island in the South of the Philippines (Global Coffee Report, 2015). Thus, the

company moved away from supporting small-holder production of coffee to more large-scale

‘plantation model’ of development, which unfortunately disrupts the traditional social order

in the communities by introducing new biopolitical hierarchies. In the top-down development

of ‘plantation model’, “coffee farmers sell coffee cherries to either farmer cooperatives or

individual private processors”. In contrast, ‘specialty coffee’ is often processed in the

facilities “owned by either cooperatives or private processors but the majority of processing

plants are owned by individual processors”. In many cases the processing equipment is

owned by the speciality coffee company that carries the brand, not by the cooperative or

farmers community that grows this coffee. However, even the cooperative structure of coffee

processing, sale and distribution still does not always guarantee higher income for coffee

growers. For example, the research results in coffee production in Rwanda show “no

59

indication that farmers who sell to cooperative factories get more benefits than farmers

selling to private processing plants”. (Murekezi, Jin, & Loveridge, 2012) The fair trade

market prefers to have cooperatives in charge of the coffee processing rather than private

processors. However in both cases, farmers “sell raw coffee “as unprocessed berries and

don’t have capacities to process their own harvest until more easily stored and transportable

green beans. Thus, the future of coffee culture seems to be at the tree-to-cup or soil-to-cup

model of production where farmers themselves are capable of managing processing, sale and

distribution of their own coffee as directly to consumers as practically possible.

The biopolitical narrative in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) has recently

shifted and reflects a growing awareness of Third Wave values, although these changes are

relatively minor when compared to the influences of industrial-scale coffee production and

processing. The primary concerns were to inform smallholder farmers of the value of their

crop and to give them the option to produce specialty-grade coffee. The Benguet State

University (BSU) in Benguet province runs the Institute of Highland Farming Systems and

Agroforestry (IHFSA), which not only publishes a research journal on agricultural

production but also maintains a coffee demonstration farm and free-of-charge training

programs for coffee start-up businesses and existing coffee farms. The Cordillera Green

Network is a non-government organization located in Baguio City but also works throughout

the CAR and promotesing shaded coffee growing among small holder famers as part of

environmental advocacy, sustainable agriculture and community reforestation. Their vision

is “totally empowered communities enjoying the abundance of nature” and the mission is “to

help transform communities in the Cordillera into models of sustainable natural resource

management.” Mariko Sorimachi, current President and Executive Director of the Cordillera

Green Network established and registered this non-governmental organization in 2001, and

since then has successfully completed a number of development projects to educate, motivate

and support local farmers to grow Arabica coffee and learn how to process it to improve the

quality and by that acceptability at the international speciality coffee market in Japan.

(Cordillera Green Network, 2018). The growth, processing and sale of speciality gourmet

Arabica coffee by farmers directly to independent coffee roasters and café baristas is another

60

approach towards “social justice” and “fair trade” discourse of alternative market structure

and international social movement at the same time “mainly between disadvantaged farmers

in the global South and concerned consumers in the North” (Jaffee, 2007). In bottom-up

‘development’ model, coffee is processed by the farmers themselves and sold directly to

consumers. The contemporary example of emancipation of Arabica coffee growers from

Benguet in the CAR is Atok Kape cooperative whose manager, Oliver Oliem, won the first

place in the Arabica category at the Philippine Coffee Quality Competition in 2018. Even the

theme of the 2018 Third Philippine Coffee Conference (PCC) - “Growing and Brewing

Together” shows “the need of a union of all coffee players, guided by the Philippine Coffee

Road Map” held on March 20-21 2018 at the Hotel Supreme in Baguio City). The PCC is a

“collaborative effort between the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of

Trade and Industry (DTI)”, however this year “the adhoc Philippine Coffee Council debuts”

to represent the private sector of Philippine coffee industry. (Department of Agriculture,

Cordillera Administrative Region, 2018)

CONCLUSION

The genealogy of coffee-drinking as religious then social and finally political activity

shows that the socially accepted norm of coffee consumption associated with the culture of

café and coffee shops in the local urban environment has a complex history with multicultural

connection. The production of coffee was also associated with the interaction between the

colonial governance systems and administrations of the Global North with the marginalized

rural populations in the Global South. Therefore, the biopolitical interaction was unequal

from the very beginning of coffee production in Asia and Latin America. Even though the

governance of coffee-related consumption as well as production is often determined by local

contextual issues of society, politics, economics as well as governance systems, the

unintended effects have always spilled beyond the community borders. In the Philippines,

the combination of the specific production and consumption practices have emphasised

ethno-linguistic and class distinctions, even if coffee itself is generally perceived as a

61

‘democratic’ classless drink. It remains to be seen whether the local government units in the

Arabica-growing areas in the Cordilleras can support the local farmers to overcome the geo-

and biopolitical hierarchies of coffee production and consumption, or whether the local

farmers would be able to develop capacities for egalitarian soil-to-cup or tree-to-cup coffee

operations and link their production directly to the consumers in the Global North. Similarly,

there is expectation that consumers as well as roasters and café baristas of the Global North

will have more knowledge and understanding of the rural communities socio-economic

contexts where coffee grows in the Global South. And for all lovers of coffee along the value

chain there is a hope to bring more cosmopolitan notion of coffee that improves connectivity

and communication among populations rather than divisive hierarchical biopolitics driven by

profit or symbolism of race, ethnicity, and other exclusive marginalizing power relations in

the World.

62

Bibliography

Agamben, G. (1998). Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. Stanford: Stanford

University Press.

Anaïs, S. (2013, January ). Genealogy and critical discourse analysis in conversation: texts,

discourse, critique . Critical Discourse Studies, 10(2), 123-135.

doi:10.1080/17405904.2012.744321

Bernstein, W. (2008). A Splendid Exchange: How trade shaped the World, . New York:

Atlantic Monthly Press.

Casambre, A. L. (2006). Autonomous Regions: The Cordillera Autonomous Region. In N.

M. Morada, & T. S. Tadem, Philippine Politics and Governance: An Introduction

(pp. 441-458). Quezon City: Department of Political Science, College of Social

Sciences and Philosophy.

Clarence-Smith, W. G., & Topik, S. (2003). The Global Coffee Economy in Africa, Asia, and

Latin America, 1500–1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clarke, G. (2001, June). From Ethnocide to Ethnodevelopment? Ethnic Minorities and

Indigenous Peoples in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, 22(3), 413-436.

Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3993472

Cordillera Green Network. (2018). Retrieved from Cordillera Green Network:

https://www.facebook.com/Cordillera-Green-Network

Department of Agriculture. (2018). Volume of Coffee Production in the Cordillera

Autonomous Region by Provinces, Coffee Statistics, Agricultural Statistics. Manila,

Philippines: Agricultural Statistics, Department of Agriculture. Retrieved September

17, 2018, from http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/?cont=10&pageid=1&ma=A60PNVOP

Department of Agriculture, Cordillera Administrative Region. (2018, March). Retrieved

from Department of Agriculture, Cordillera Administrative Region:

http://car.da.gov.ph/index.php/103-ph-coffee-stakeholders-converge-at-3rd-pcc

63

Duffield, M. (2007). Development, Security and Unending War: Governing the World of

Peoples. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ferrier, R. W. (1996). A Journey to Persia: Jean Chardin’s Portrait of a Seventeenth-century

Empire. London and New York: I.B. Tauris and Co ltd.

Fischer, E. F. (2017). Quality and Inequality: Taste, Value, and Power in the Third Wave

Coffee Market. Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.

Foucault, M. (2008). The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France, 1978-1979

(English Series Editor: Arnold I. Davidson ed.). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Global Coffee Report. (2015). the-philippines-coffee-revolution. Retrieved September 25,

2018, from http://gcrmag.com/market-reports/view/the-philippines-coffee-

revolution

Guevara, J. (2017, April 10). What Is “Third Wave Coffee” & How Is It Different to

Specialty? The Perfect Daily Grind. Retrieved September 10, 2018, from

https://www.perfectdailygrind.com/2017/04/third-wave-coffee-different-specialty/

Hagan, C. B. (1942, November). Geopolitics. The Journal of Politics, 4(No. 4), 478-490.

Retrieved November 21, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2125653

(1994). Human Development Report. United Nations Development Programme.

Hyndman, D. (1991). Organic Act Rejected in the Cordillera: Dialectics of a Continuing

Forth World Autonomy Movement in the Philippines. Dialectical Anthropology,

16(2), 169-184.

International Coffee Organization. (2018, October 2). Retrieved from International Coffee

Organization: http://www.ico.org/

Jaffee, D. (2007). Brewing Justice: Fair Trade Coffee, Sustainability, and Survival. Berkley,

Los Angeles and London: University of California Press.

64

James, D. (2002, September-October). Justice and Java: Coffee in a Fair Trade Market .

Retrieved from Global Exchange Website:

http://www.globalexchange.org/fairtrade/coffee/starbucks

Kelly, J. (2013, May 23). Coffee addiction: Do people consume too much caffeine. BBC

News Magazine. Retrieved April 20, 2016, from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22530625

Kitchin, R. (2014). Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigms shifts. Big Data & Society,

1-12. doi:10.1177/2053951714528481

Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as Critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity.

Bloomingtong, Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Lemke, T. (2001, May 2). The birth of bio-politics’:Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège

de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society , 30(No. 2), 190-207.

doi:10.1080 /03085140120042271

Lemke, T., Casper, M., & Moore, L. (2011). Biopolitics: An advanced introduction. New

York and London: New York University Press.

Lewis, M. W. (1992). Agricultural Regions in the Philippines Cordillera. Geographical

Review, 82(1), 29-42. doi:10.2307/215403

Lovett, R. (2005, September 24). Coffee: the demon drink. New Scientist Magazine(2518).

Retrieved April 28, 2016, from

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18725181.700

Macdonald, K. (2007). Globalising justice within coffee supply chains? FairTrade, Starbucks

and the transformation of supply chain governance. Third World Quarterly, 28(4),

793-812. doi:10.1080/01436590701336663

Malayang III, B. S. (2001). Tenure Rights and Ancestral Domains in the Philippines: A Study

of the Roots of Conflict. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 157(3 ), 661-

676. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27865768

65

Manahan, M. A. (2011). Banking on the Rural Poor?: Critical Insights and Policy Questions

on Foreign Aid and Agrarian Reform in the Philippines. Kasarinlan: Philippine

Journal of Third World Studies, 26(1-2), 312-323.

McHugo, J. (2013, April 18). (18th April 2013). Coffee and qahwa: How a drink for Arab

mystics went global. BBC News Magazine. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22190802

Murekezi, A., Jin, S., & Loveridge, S. (2012). Do organisational forms of the coffee supply

chain matter in poverty reduction? Development in Practice, 22(7), 962-977.

doi:10.1080/09614524.2012.697127

Neilson, J., & Shonk, F. (2014). Chained to Development? Livelihoods and global value

chains in the coffee-producing Toraja region of Indonesia. Australian Geographer,,

45(3), 269-288. doi:10.1080/00049182.2014.929998

Parfitt, T. (2002). The End of Development? Modernity, Post-modernity and Development.

London: Pluto Press.

Parfitt, T. (2009, January 1). Are the Third World Poor Homines Sacri? Biopolitics,

Sovereignty, and Development. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 34(1), 41-58.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/030437540903400103

Pendergrast, M. (2010). Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed

Our World. New York: Basic Books.

(2012-2013). Philippine Human Development Report. Geography, Part II: Geography and

Human Development in the Philippines. Manila: United National Development

Programme.

Prill-Brett, J. (1994). Indigenous Land Rights and Legal Pluralism among Philippine

Highlanders, (1994), pp, accessed on 11th August 2013 at. Law & Society Review,

28(3), 687-698. Retrieved October 10, 2018, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30540

66

Richards, J. (2000). Biographical Introduction to Sir John Chardin (1927), Travels in Persia

1673-1677, London: Argonaut Press. University of Washington Website. Retrieved

April 23, 2016, from http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/chardin/chardin.h

Rocky Mountain Café Inc. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility Report: More than just

coffee . Rocky Mountain Café Inc.

Somit, A. (1972, April). Biopolitics. British Journal of Political Science, 2(No. 2), 209-238.

Retrieved December 2, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/193357

Taft, W. H. (1902, September). Political Parties in the Philippines. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 20, 3-8. Retrieved July 2017, 21, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1010036

Taylor, D. (2011). Michel Foucault: Key Concepts. Durham: Acumen Publishing.

Ting Jr., M. T. (2008). Modernity vs. Culture: Protecting the Indigenous Peoples of the

Philippines. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies.

Verburg, P. H., Overmars, K. P., & Witte, N. (2004, September). Accessibility and Land-

Use Patterns at the Forest Fringe in the Northeastern Part of the Philippine. The

Geographical Journal, 170(3), 238-255. Retrieved October 12, 2018, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3451255

Walker, A. (2013, April 17). 1913: When Hitler, Trotsky, Tito, Freud and Stalin all lived in

the same place. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from BBC News Magazine, Today

Programme, BBC Radio 4: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21859771

Wiber, M. G. (1991, September). Levels of Property Rights, Levels of Law: A Case study

from the Northern Philippines. Man, New Series, Royal Anthropological Institute of

Great Britain and Ireland, 26(3), 464-492. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2803878

Willis, K. (2005). Theories and Practices of Development. Oxon and New York: Routlidge.

67

Woodside, A. G. (2010). Case Study Research: Theory, Methods, Practice. (UK, North

America, Japan, India, China: Emerald Publications.